I miss World Tennis Magazine. THAT was a real tennis magazine. They declared Becker year end #1 after he won Wimbledon and the USO in 1989, correctly notifying the ATP, which had Lendl ranked year end #1, that their ranking system was facaktin.

There is already a lot of threads about this question. And it's generally agreed that Vilas was the real n°1. It's an evidence. He won 16 tournaments (record), 2 Grand Slams, and 46 matches consecutively (record).

Yes but it's considered part of the 1977 season and is one of the things considered which they evaluated number one for 1977. I guess the best analogy is that the Super Bowl is held the next year but is considered a part of the previous year's NFL season.

But I did write that year which is technically incorrect. My bad. I should have wrote that season.

When people feel that end of year rankings have got it wrong, it usually when do a comparison on how players did at the slams and perhaps the season end finals. The issue I fee could be resolved by making the slams relatively more point laden. I feel the slams should be 3 times the ranking value of masters 1000s.

Imagine if someone won cincinati and montreal one year should they feel as satisfied as someone winning wimbledon?

"Tennis Magazine (France); Michel Sutter; World Tennis; London Daily Telegraph; Tennis Club Magazine (Rome); Joe McCauley; Bud Collins; John Barrett; ATP Awards; Borg won Wimbledon over Connors who also lost the US Open against Vilas; Connors captured both the Masters beating Borg and the WCT Finals (Dick Stockton runner-up); Vilas also won a partially depleted French Open without Connors, Borg, Vitas Gerulaitis, Orantes and Stockton (anyway, seven of the top-10 players entered the tournament [30][31], so it was still an important one); Orantes beat Eddie Dibbs in the U.S. Pro; Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Borg #1 because he won Wimbledon and he defeated Vilas 3 times out of 3; Lance Tingay of the London Daily Telegraph, Rino Tommasi of Rome's Tennis Club magazine, Joe McCauley of Tennis Australia, Bud Collins and John Barrett also rated Borg first; while World Tennis and Michel Sutter considered Vilas the best one because among other reasons he won 46 matches in a row (even 50 including the Rye tournament excluded in ATP statistics) and 16 titles (or 17 Rye included); the ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year" contradicting its computer ranking (Connors N° 1)."

Vilas clearly had the best year in 1977 as highlighted by his 2 slam titles and 16 titles in total. Borg was clearly the best player in 1977 with his winning h2hs over Vilas (3-0) and Connors (2-1), and his standard of tennis from about March to November, where his only official defeat was a retirement, being far beyond anything that either of those other 2 produced.

Agassi had the best year in 1999, while Sampras was the best player.

I personally think that Roddick had a slightly better year in 2003 than Federer, but Federer was the best player.

Ashe had the best year in 1975 with his Wimbledon and Dallas titles, while Connors was the best player.

Vilas clearly had the best year in 1977 as highlighted by his 2 slam titles and 16 titles in total. Borg was clearly the best player in 1977 with his winning h2hs over Vilas (3-0) and Connors (2-1), and his standard of tennis from about March to November, where his only official defeat was a retirement, being far beyond anything that either of those other 2 produced.

Agassi had the best year in 1999, while Sampras was the best player.

I personally think that Roddick had a slightly better year in 2003 than Federer, but Federer was the best player.

Ashe had the best year in 1975 with his Wimbledon and Dallas titles, while Connors was the best player.

Click to expand...

And in 2006, Federer had the best year, but Nadal was better than him.

Vilas clearly had the best year in 1977 as highlighted by his 2 slam titles and 16 titles in total. Borg was clearly the best player in 1977 with his winning h2hs over Vilas (3-0) and Connors (2-1), and his standard of tennis from about March to November, where his only official defeat was a retirement, being far beyond anything that either of those other 2 produced.

Click to expand...

Vilas won 72 of his last 73 matches of 1977, the only loss was controversial (spaghetti string). Borg doesn't have those numbers from March to November the same year. It was from July onwards when Vilas was at his best in 1977 and he didn't meet Borg in that period.

When Vilas was compiling that winning streak on clay, Borg was winning bigger tournaments on clay and carpet, with better fields and more prize money on offer. It's not about blindly following numbers alone but looking at the tennis played as well.

As far as non-slam tournaments, he definately had more of a 'quality over quantity' approach than Vilas.

From March to November Borg was beating better players and playing better tennis than Vilas did at the end of the year.

Not to mention that Vilas was completely helpless in his 3 matches against Borg that year, winning just 1 set out of 8.

When Vilas was compiling that winning streak on clay, Borg was winning bigger tournaments on clay and carpet, with better fields and more prize money on offer. It's not about blindly following numbers alone but looking at the tennis played as well.

Click to expand...

Yet Vilas won the 2 biggest clay-court tournaments of the year in the French Open and US Open.

Yet Vilas won the 2 biggest clay-court tournaments of the year in the French Open and US Open.

Click to expand...

A very good achievement and the main reason why Vilas had the best year.

However Vilas's RG title was not part of that amazing run you were talking about. During Borg's great run he was winning big tournaments like Wimbledon on grass, Nice, Monte-Carlo, Madrid and Barcelona on clay, and Basel, Cologne and Wembley, with strong fields. Amazing versatility and dominance there.

During Vilas's winning run every single one of the titles he won were on clay apart from Johannesburg on hard courts. And aside from the US Open (when fortunately for him his projected semi-final against Borg didn't materialise), many of the titles he was winning didn't have Borg in the draw. Of the reverse argument is that Borg was therefore winning titles in Vilas's absence, but of course Borg didn't any reason to be scared of Vilas during that period.

I don't see how anyone can measure this, and who has actually seen all their matches in that period?

Click to expand...

That's the beauty of this discussion. It is subjective who was the best. Many of these matches are readily available for good prices through numerous outlets. Tennis is great sport so watching it and forming conclusions based on that is always a good idea.

Ardently looking at stats alone without looking at the tennis played doesn't cut it and has the touch of 'trainspotting' about it.

Again to repeat I have made it quite clear many times that Vilas had the best year and deserved to be a player of the year for 1977. I give 1978-1980 to Borg but not 1976 (although Connors both had better results and played the best tennis that year) or 1977.

Who had the best year is based solely on achievements. However who was the best player is not just based solely on stats but also by judging the level of tennis played as well.

One of those matches was in January 1978. Using your argument here, you can say that Nadal was a better player than Federer in 2006 because he beat Federer 4 times out of 6 matches.

Click to expand...

Nope you are missing the point. I'm bringing in the h2h for the year as one factor, not the only factor. A huge difference. And at least Federer beat Nadal twice in 2006, on big stages (the Wimbledon final and Masters Cup), and was competitive with Nadal in 3 matches he lost (the Monte-Carlo final that year was a very underrated match). Vilas was steamrolled in all 3 matches.

But of course all of that pales in comparison to Federer's 92-5 win-loss record for year and consistent excellent, only failing to reach the final once in 17 tournament appearances.

And as you know very well with tennis's horrible organisation back then, the Masters in 1978 counts towards the 1977 season. That's why we say that Connors won the 1977 Masters and McEnroe won the 1978 event. I don't think anyone is throwing out Connors's Masters title from his 1977 achievements.

Connors' victory over Borg in that tournament counts towards their 1977 records, so Borg's victory over Vilas does as well. You can flex the criteria when it suits you depending on who your favourite players are.

When Vilas was compiling that winning streak on clay, Borg was winning bigger tournaments on clay and carpet, with better fields and more prize money on offer. It's not about blindly following numbers alone but looking at the tennis played as well.

As far as non-slam tournaments, he definately had more of a 'quality over quantity' approach than Vilas.

From March to November Borg was beating better players and playing better tennis than Vilas did at the end of the year.

Not to mention that Vilas was completely helpless in his 3 matches against Borg that year, winning just 1 set out of 8.

My opinion about 1977 is that Vilas won most GS titles and most titles overall, but Borg won Wimbledon, was 3-0 up on Vilas and was best overall player on all surfaces. Who does that make the real no.1? I choose Borg, but others choose Vilas. No real wrong answer because it's so close, take your pick.

My opinion about 1977 is that Vilas won most GS titles and most titles overall, but Borg won Wimbledon, was 3-0 up on Vilas and was best overall player on all surfaces. Who does that make the real no.1? I choose Borg, but others choose Vilas. No real wrong answer because it's so close, take your pick.

Click to expand...

Vilas won more Grand Slams than Borg, more tournaments than Borg, more matches than Borg. He won tournaments on clay, on hard courts, and also indoor courts, and was finalist in Australia on grass courts. He is the world champion.

Vilas won more Grand Slams than Borg, more tournaments than Borg, more matches than Borg. He won tournaments on clay, on hard courts, and also indoor courts, and was finalist in Australia on grass courts. He is the world champion.

I miss World Tennis Magazine. THAT was a real tennis magazine. They declared Becker year end #1 after he won Wimbledon and the USO in 1989, correctly notifying the ATP, which had Lendl ranked year end #1, that their ranking system was facaktin.

Click to expand...

I remember the end of the 1989 season. Becker was in the zone for a couple of months in the later part of the year. I saw him play Wilander after the USO (on TV). Wilander was still a great player then and had just come off his own incredible 1988 season. Becker destroyed him. He was going completely Federer before that was even a thing.

World Tennis said :
"VILAS IS N°1 : When Borg destroyed Vilas 6/3 6/3 in the semifinals of the Master, many felt that Bjorn deserved the N°1 ranking on the basis of his Wimbledon title, his head-to-head edge over Connors (2/1) and Vilas (3/0). Afterall, Borg did win 13 of 20 tournaments and lost only one final. But that final, his narrow loss to Connors in the Master, was critical. Borg needed another major title to go along with Wimbledon. Vilas won two -the FO and the USO- and had, overall, the best record of any player. It was not enough for Borg to simply settle matters with Vilas with a victory over Guillermo at the Master. He needed a second major championship to surpass the extraordinary consistency of Vilas' year".

I think Borg ran Vilas close, but by the numbers I'd give it to the Argentine myself. However, I'm curious as to the quality of the 16 events he won. Was he "gaming the system"? How similar was it to Berasategui in 1994 ~ he won three or four tournaments in the autumn and I think only two of his opponents were inside the top 50.

I remember the end of the 1989 season. Becker was in the zone for a couple of months in the later part of the year. I saw him play Wilander after the USO (on TV). Wilander was still a great player then and had just come off his own incredible 1988 season. Becker destroyed him. He was going completely Federer before that was even a thing.

Lendl was super consistent, but Becker was the guy in 1989.

Click to expand...

While I agree that Becker was the best player in 1989, your comment about Wilander isn't really accurate. He had a miserable year, reaching only one final (lost to Gomez), going 34-18 and dropping out of the top ten. Against Boris on indoor carpet and in front of a vociferous German crowd, it was hardly a shock result. He needed five sets to beat Steeb during the same Davis Cup final, and described that result as "a good end [to] a lousy year".[source]

Becker comprehensively beating Edberg in straights in his other DC singles match, when Stefan was fresh off winning the Masters, was a lot more impressive IMO.

I have got proof that it's generally agreed that Borg was the real No. 1 in 1977:

"But even though World Tennis magazine declared Vilas No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg.” The Bud Collins History of Tennis An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book

It's obvious that Vilas had the best results over the whole season. That is undeniable. 1977 Borg cannot compete with 16 tournaments wins, 2 majors (plus another major final), a 53 match clay-court winning streak and a 46 match winning streak. Borg just didn't have the activity needed, nor the number of major wins.

I have got proof that it's generally agreed that Borg was the real No. 1 in 1977:
"But even though World Tennis magazine declared Vilas No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg.” The Bud Collins History of Tennis An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book

It's obvious that Vilas had the best results over the whole season. That is undeniable. 1977 Borg cannot compete with 16 tournaments wins, 2 majors (plus another major final), a 53 match clay-court winning streak and a 46 match winning streak. Borg just didn't have the activity needed, nor the number of major wins.